WebTransport
charter-ietf-webtrans-01
Yes
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2020-02-05 for -00-00)
Not sent
Concur that the clarifications suggested by Magnus and Alissa would be helpful
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2020-02-06 for -00-00)
Sent
I will follow the discussion around the BLOCK points of my fellow AD but I wonder why this is in ART and not in TSV? -éric
Adam Roach Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-02-12 for -00-01)
Sent
Thanks for addressing my comments.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-02-06 for -00-00)
Sent
Do we have a target security level (e.g., "the same as HTTPS with TLS 1.3") that we want this work to provide?
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-02-13 for -00-01)
Sent
Thanks, this new charter do address the blocking points I have. The coordination with the API development still is unclear on this level. I do understand the challenge to be clear on it. So just leaving this as a comment.
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-02-06 for -00-00)
Sent
In support of Alissa's and Magnus' blocks I would also like to see this (initially) more narrowly scoped. Especially talking about "protocols or protocol extensions" without constraining this statement to a set of transport protocols that need to be used, as well as not constraining the list "range of simple communication methods" to a limited (initial) list basically allows this charter to define more or less any kind of protocol (over the whole stack).
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-02-05 for -00-00)
Not sent
Support Alissa's and Magnus's block points and would like to see them clarified.